Keystone XL Updates

I just got off the phone with CA Senator Feinstein's office and they are thrilled that the Keystone XL has been defeated in the Senate. This doesn't mean this is over- no way- but it's a big step in the right direction.

I want to reiterate to anyone here who does work related to the oil industry that I am never in favor of putting people out of work. I am convinced that moving toward alternatives to gas, coal and oil will create more jobs, not fewer, and I hope those opportunities do open up for any of you or your friends and family affected by the changes that are sure to take place in the years to come.

Bri,not to piss on your parade here,but what about the potential for greater percentage of domestic crude therefore helping with our dependency on foreign sources? And as mentioned the huge construction benefit and creation of many long term employment opps.I am in no way an expert here so please educate me on why so many dems were so anti pipeline,when it's a step toward energy freedom not a blow to sustainable progress.What is the big enviormental worry? It would seem this is a safer way to transport then say ship,truck or rail and should actually make accidents with other forms of transport less likely.Where am I miss enformed?

Bri,not to piss on your parade here,but what about the potential for greater percentage of domestic crude therefore helping with our dependency on foreign sources? And as mentioned the huge construction benefit and creation of many long term employment opps.I am in no way an expert here so please educate me on why so many dems were so anti pipeline,when it's a step toward energy freedom not a blow to sustainable progress.What is the big enviormental worry? It would seem this is a safer way to transport then say ship,truck or rail and should actually make accidents with other forms of transport less likely.Where am I miss enformed?

rr, not feeling pissed on at all. Anything stance I or anyone else takes on an issue should be able to be backed up. So, good questions.

The oil that the proposes Keystone XL pipeline would carry is oil extracted from Canadian tar sands. There are several problems with the Keystone XL. The major problems with it, as I understand it are:

1) tar sand extraction is laying to waste vast amounts of beautiful wild and , often, North American Indian lands that are not going to be restored- no matter what the oil companies may have us believe- and,

2) Our continued world-wide use of petroleum is releasing carbon dioxide into the air which is driving the mean global temperature up at a fast pace and this climate change is going to have devastating effects on ours and other species ability to survive under these new conditions. Global warming is raising sea level, causing species to decline at an unnaturally fast rate, spreading infectious disease-such as dengue, malaria and cholera, thrive in warmer temperatures. Natural balances are being thrown off by this rapid climate change and we will have many difficulties adapting to those changes. Desperate and expensive measures to extract oil from the earth are being taken today because all the easy oil has already been extracted. This is consistent with what proponents (including some now retired big oil executives) have been saying about peak oil. Rather than use the time and money and energy to develop cleaner alternatives, Big Oil continues to make record amounts of money extracting oil and polluting the planet.

3) Keystone XL will not reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Most of this oil is not intended for domestic markets.

4) A pipeline as long as Keystone XL will leak. Yes, oil tankers leak as well but again, we need to be looking at clean alternatives, no creating new infrastructure that leaks yet more oil into our environment.

5) American Indian lands will be affected by the Keystone XL and these people (who have been screwed over since Europeans first land on this continent) have not given their approval for the pipeline- in fact, they resist it.

This may come as a surprise to some, but even FOX news has reported that the Kystone XL project is a bad idea. You can read that here:

If I weren't buried in work this week, rr, I would cite many more references for you- you should not simply take what I say at my word. I'm a bookseller, not a scientist. SO yes, do be skeptical! Nothing wrong with that! But also, if this subject interests you, I would encourage you to look into research based on solid science what can be found at sites such as these:

Bri,not to piss on your parade here,but what about the potential for greater percentage of domestic crude therefore helping with our dependency on foreign sources? And as mentioned the huge construction benefit and creation of many long term employment opps.I am in no way an expert here so please educate me on why so many dems were so anti pipeline,when it's a step toward energy freedom not a blow to sustainable progress.What is the big enviormental worry? It would seem this is a safer way to transport then say ship,truck or rail and should actually make accidents with other forms of transport less likely.Where am I miss enformed?

rr, not feeling pissed on at all. Anything stance I or anyone else takes on an issue should be able to be backed up. So, good questions.

The oil that the proposes Keystone XL pipeline would carry is oil extracted from Canadian tar sands. There are several problems with the Keystone XL. The major problems with it, as I understand it are:

1) tar sand extraction is laying to waste vast amounts of beautiful wild and , often, North American Indian lands that are not going to be restored- no matter what the oil companies may have us believe- and,

2) Our continued world-wide use of petroleum is releasing carbon dioxide into the air which is driving the mean global temperature up at a fast pace and this climate change is going to have devastating effects on ours and other species ability to survive under these new conditions. Global warming is raising sea level, causing species to decline at an unnaturally fast rate, spreading infectious disease-such as dengue, malaria and cholera, thrive in warmer temperatures. Natural balances are being thrown off by this rapid climate change and we will have many difficulties adapting to those changes. Desperate and expensive measures to extract oil from the earth are being taken today because all the easy oil has already been extracted. This is consistent with what proponents (including some now retired big oil executives) have been saying about peak oil. Rather than use the time and money and energy to develop cleaner alternatives, Big Oil continues to make record amounts of money extracting oil and polluting the planet.

3) Keystone XL will not reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Most of this oil is not intended for domestic markets.

4) A pipeline as long as Keystone XL will leak. Yes, oil tankers leak as well but again, we need to be looking at clean alternatives, no creating new infrastructure that leaks yet more oil into our environment.

5) American Indian lands will be affected by the Keystone XL and these people (who have been screwed over since Europeans first land on this continent) have not given their approval for the pipeline- in fact, they resist it.

This may come as a surprise to some, but even FOX news has reported that the Kystone XL project is a bad idea. You can read that here:

If I weren't buried in work this week, rr, I would cite many more references for you- you should not simply take what I say at my word. I'm a bookseller, not a scientist. SO yes, do be skeptical! Nothing wrong with that! But also, if this subject interests you, I would encourage you to look into research based on solid science what can be found at sites such as these:

Thanks, Brian. It's been quite a while since I've done some major reading on Keystone, but I do know that there health issues in Canada with similar projects and that Keystone (as memory serves) would put aquifer(s) in danger of being polluted. There were plans (again, my reading is dated, so correct me if I'm wrong) where yes, they were going through reservations and planning to plow over structures and whatnot with no regard to cultural significance . . .

It's bad all around. Thank you for being kind enough to share the information on here.

I just don't see how how the alternatives will not only replace the jobs lost in the oil, coal, and gas industries, but add more.

Let's say a coal fired power plant that produces 2400 megawatts and employs 350 workers is shut down because a wind farm is being built and the EPA and federal government imposes stricter regulations for carbon emissions. The intial construction of the farm could boost the number of jobs but once the farm is built and operational, how many jobs would actually be created? I have no idea what kind of manpower it would take to run a wind farm, my guess that it isn't close to 350.

I base that on a very large wind farm that is located on the Ohio side of the Ohio/Indiana border off US-30. There are 210 large wind turbines with no facilities that can be seen from the highway. There would have to be a certain number of maintenance personnel and linemen. But it doesn't look like 350 to me. The article cited below reports that once that farm is completed, a whopping 15-20 permanent jobs will be created.

Plus, those 210 wind turbines (cost about $2million each) only produce enough to power about 500 typical Ohio homes. I don't know the total megawatts. To put that into prospective, Ohio has plans to build another 571 turbines that will only produce about 1100 megawatts.

So how could these alternatives create enough jobs to cover the jobs lost when these plants close down? And how could they keep up with the demand for power lost at a cost effective price?

I just don't see how how the alternatives will not only replace the jobs lost in the oil, coal, and gas industries, but add more.

Let's say a coal fired power plant that produces 2400 megawatts and employs 350 workers is shut down because a wind farm is being built and the EPA and federal government imposes stricter regulations for carbon emissions. The intial construction of the farm could boost the number of jobs but once the farm is built and operational, how many jobs would actually be created? I have no idea what kind of manpower it would take to run a wind farm, my guess that it isn't close to 350.

I base that on a very large wind farm that is located on the Ohio side of the Ohio/Indiana border off US-30. There are 210 large wind turbines with no facilities that can be seen from the highway. There would have to be a certain number of maintenance personnel and linemen. But it doesn't look like 350 to me. The article cited below reports that once that farm is completed, a whopping 15-20 permanent jobs will be created.

Plus, those 210 wind turbines (cost about $2million each) only produce enough to power about 500 typical Ohio homes. I don't know the total megawatts. To put that into prospective, Ohio has plans to build another 571 turbines that will only produce about 1100 megawatts.

So how could these alternatives create enough jobs to cover the jobs lost when these plants close down? And how could they keep up with the demand for power lost at a cost effective price?

I know the thread is about the keystone pipeline, but Brian mentioned in the first post that alternatives would create more jobs.

Another good question- thanks, Last Exit 12.

Here's what the Union of Concerned Scientists have to say on jobs created by renewable energy:

Jobs and Other Economic Benefits

Compared with fossil fuel technologies, which are typically mechanized and capital intensive, the renewable energy industry is more labor-intensive. This means that, on average, more jobs are created for each unit of electricity generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels.

Renewable energy already supports thousands of jobs in the United States. For example, in 2011, the wind energy industry directly employed 75,000 full-time-equivalent employees in a variety of capacities, including manufacturing, project development, construction and turbine installation, operations and maintenance, transportation and logistics, and financial, legal, and consulting services [10]. More than 500 factories in the United States manufacture parts for wind turbines, and the amount of domestically manufactured equipment used in wind turbines has grown dramatically in recent years: from 35 percent in 2006 to 70 percent in 2011 [11, 12].

Other renewable energy technologies employ even more workers. In 2011, the solar industry employed approximately 100,000 people on a part-time or full-time basis, including jobs in solar installation, manufacturing, and sales [13]; the hydroelectric power industry employed approximately 250,000 people in 2009 [14]; and in 2010 the geothermal industry employed 5,200 people [15].

Increasing renewable energy has the potential to create still more jobs. In 2009, the Union of Concerned Scientists conducted an analysis of the economic benefits of a 25 percent renewable energy standard by 2025; it found that such a policy would create more than three times as many jobs as producing an equivalent amount of electricity from fossil fuels—resulting in a benefit of 202,000 new jobs in 2025 [16].

In addition to the jobs directly created in the renewable energy industry, growth in renewable energy industry creates positive economic “ripple” effects. For example, industries in the renewable energy supply chain will benefit, and unrelated local businesses will benefit from increased household and business incomes [17].

In addition to creating new jobs, increasing our use of renewable energy offers other important economic development benefits. Local governments collect property and income taxes and other payments from renewable energy project owners. These revenues can help support vital public services, especially in rural communities where projects are often located. Owners of the land on which wind projects are built also often receive lease payments ranging from $3,000 to $6,000 per megawatt of installed capacity, as well as payments for power line easements and road rights-of-way. Or they may earn royalties based on the project’s annual revenues. Similarly, farmers and rural landowners can generate new sources of supplemental income by producing feedstocks for biomass power facilities.

UCS analysis found that a 25 by 2025 national renewable electricity standard would stimulate $263.4 billion in new capital investment for renewable energy technologies, $13.5 billion in new landowner income biomass production and/or wind land lease payments, and $11.5 billion in new property tax revenue for local communities [18].

Renewable energy projects therefore keep money circulating within the local economy, and in most states renewable electricity production would reduce the need to spend money on importing coal and natural gas from other places. Thirty-eight states were net importers of coal in 2008—from other states and, increasingly, other countries: 16 states spent a total of more than $1.8 billion on coal from as far away as Colombia, Venezuela, and Indonesia, and 11 states spent more than $1 billion each on net coal imports [19]

Sorry for the lame copy-and-paste answer. I really am slammed this week.

I've been following UCSUSA.org for years and they seem like a good, reliable, responsible, non-partisan source of scientific information. Everything I've read that they've published sounds reliable to me.

We're living on the edge of something big. It's a fantastic time in history to be alive.
AMT, 1.25.15, 00:36 hrs.***********M.I.T.S.

I wonder how many of those 75,000 full time jobs are the VP level management of the corporations that are funding these projects. And no, I did not dig deeper to see the breakdown because I'm tired. But I think that number is inflated. It's using the entire renewable energy industry as a whole. Maybe tomorrow I will dig deeper to break it down.

But just using the example I cited in Ohio. 20 New jobs created from such an expensive and expansive project. Yes it's a small scale compared to Brian's example, but that's my point. Using renewable energy is less cost effective. But used in conjunction with sources already in place, can be an effective way to supplement supply when demand increases.

Compared with fossil fuel technologies, which are typically mechanized and capital intensive, the renewable energy industry is more labor-intensive. This means that, on average, more jobs are created for each unit of electricity generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels.

Renewable energy already supports thousands of jobs in the United States. For example, in 2011, the wind energy industry directly employed 75,000 full-time-equivalent employees in a variety of capacities, including manufacturing, project development, construction and turbine installation, operations and maintenance, transportation and logistics, and financial, legal, and consulting services [10]. More than 500 factories in the United States manufacture parts for wind turbines, and the amount of domestically manufactured equipment used in wind turbines has grown dramatically in recent years: from 35 percent in 2006 to 70 percent in 2011 [11, 12].

Other renewable energy technologies employ even more workers. In 2011, the solar industry employed approximately 100,000 people on a part-time or full-time basis, including jobs in solar installation, manufacturing, and sales [13]; the hydroelectric power industry employed approximately 250,000 people in 2009 [14]; and in 2010 the geothermal industry employed 5,200 people [15].

Increasing renewable energy has the potential to create still more jobs. In 2009, the Union of Concerned Scientists conducted an analysis of the economic benefits of a 25 percent renewable energy standard by 2025; it found that such a policy would create more than three times as many jobs as producing an equivalent amount of electricity from fossil fuels—resulting in a benefit of 202,000 new jobs in 2025 [16].

In addition to the jobs directly created in the renewable energy industry, growth in renewable energy industry creates positive economic “ripple” effects. For example, industries in the renewable energy supply chain will benefit, and unrelated local businesses will benefit from increased household and business incomes [17].

In addition to creating new jobs, increasing our use of renewable energy offers other important economic development benefits. Local governments collect property and income taxes and other payments from renewable energy project owners. These revenues can help support vital public services, especially in rural communities where projects are often located. Owners of the land on which wind projects are built also often receive lease payments ranging from $3,000 to $6,000 per megawatt of installed capacity, as well as payments for power line easements and road rights-of-way. Or they may earn royalties based on the project’s annual revenues. Similarly, farmers and rural landowners can generate new sources of supplemental income by producing feedstocks for biomass power facilities.

UCS analysis found that a 25 by 2025 national renewable electricity standard would stimulate $263.4 billion in new capital investment for renewable energy technologies, $13.5 billion in new landowner income biomass production and/or wind land lease payments, and $11.5 billion in new property tax revenue for local communities [18].

Renewable energy projects therefore keep money circulating within the local economy, and in most states renewable electricity production would reduce the need to spend money on importing coal and natural gas from other places. Thirty-eight states were net importers of coal in 2008—from other states and, increasingly, other countries: 16 states spent a total of more than $1.8 billion on coal from as far away as Colombia, Venezuela, and Indonesia, and 11 states spent more than $1 billion each on net coal imports [19]

none of this oil is for our consumption. this oil is going on the international market and will ship globally from american ports. canadian oil companies will make billions, we will get nothing. we will assume all the risk of something happens and oil floods our own lands. the jobs will be construction jobs. what happens to them once it is built?

then there is this. the united states is now one of the top oil producing countries in the world. why else do you think gas has been so cheep?

this pipeline is a bad idea.

"There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed."- Hemingway

none of this oil is for our consumption. this oil is going on the international market and will ship globally from american ports. canadian oil companies will make billions, we will get nothing. we will assume all the risk of something happens and oil floods our own lands. the jobs will be construction jobs. what happens to them once it is built?

then there is this. the united states is now one of the top oil producing countries in the world. why else do you think gas has been so cheep?

this pipeline is a bad idea.

First of all these aren't "Canadian oil companies" unless you are talking about Suncor. Or CNRL.Canadian oil sands have been invested heavily by US oil companies (Exxon) and the Netherlands (Royal Dutch Shell).Moreover, all these companies are publicly traded on the stock market and therefore are owned by people the world over. The CEO and board of directors of these companies have a responsibility to the shareholders to make a profit and increase the stock's value.

Pipeline is the safest way to transport heavy crude oil. If you do not believe this Google the Lac Megantic Quebec rail disaster or the Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill. The pipeline industry has improved the quality of the pipeline used in new mainline digs, and is constantly repairing the existing pipelines with integrity digs. This is where the long term jobs lie in Keystone. The pipelines are monitored 24/7 and people are employed to do maintenance, monitor, etc.

Alternative energy sources are not bad ideas, however I do not think people realize how much oil is used in what products you buy everyday. It's not just gasoline. You buy something plastic, it has oil in it. Chez Whiz? It has condensate. I think if you researched everything that uses petroleum based products you would be stunned... At how reliable on oil you really are.

Now for the Alberta oil sands, laughably dubbed "dirty oil" by many environmentalists and social activists. I worked I. Fort McMurray in the oil sands for a decade. These are the truths I KNOW as fact based on earlier arguments:1) the "native Americans" of Canada prefer to be called First Nations people and the oil sands have done damage to the Athabasca River and Lake Athabasca. An unusual number of people in Fort Chipyewan reserve have developed bile duct cancer2) the oil sands companies give greatly to the community of Fort McMurray. Their generosity is unparalleled to any other industry I've been a part of3) reclamation of mined land is accomplished. The land itself is not picturesque in anyway, a veritable flat wasteland of twig trees growing out of muskeg. Many swamps, etc. However unappealing it is, the land is being returned to its original state4) the carbon released is another debate, however, each piece of sand has a drop of oil attached. Thee sand is tumbled with water, steam and caustic acids to separate the sand and oil I. The mining process. The companies have continually improved the process to the point where no water will be used in the future5) the SAGD process causes little harm to the land. In fact, I see little difference between this, conventional oil or fracking.6) the oil sand give off very little carbon on a global scale. It is estimated they account for less than 2% of Canada's "greenhouse gas emissions"

Now I love Neil Young and his music, but he has not lived in Canada for a long time. He has decided to call out the oil sands for environmental transgressions. They can improve, and they know it, but which industry cannot improve it's performance?

As a valued trading partner, and our principle investor, we look to the U.S. to build the infrastructure to enable us to deliver our raw resources. Canada is a resource based economy. It's plain and simple.The fallout in Canada from this Keystone debate is twofold. If the U.S. Doesn't want our oil, we must diversify our markets. Prime Minister Harper has recently visited China and signed trade agreements. China has invested in the oil sands (CNOC is a government run oil company in China). Canada is close to signing a free trade agreement with the EU similar to NAFTA.

The U.S. Economy continues to stagnate and we must protect ourselves. This pipeline is a great investment in both our nations. Trans Canada pipeline is a fine company with an environmental conscience.

That is just my two cents, as someone who has done business or worked in both the oil sands and pipeline industries. Keystone is a great investment in energy future for the U.S. In my opinion. This will undoubtedly be an unpopular post considering the slant of this topic, but the oil and pipeline companies are constantly improving.... Can we say that for all industry?

If you want to subdue yourselves, look up the environmental mess created I. Developing countries to produce solar cells for your "clean energy". It's typical first world "not in my backyard" mentality.

My advice to anyone interested in this topic is don't listen to me, don't listen to Neil Young, don't listen to people who work in the oil industry, don't listen to Al Gore, but do listen to the non-biased, non-partisan scientists who understand this subject and make it their life's work.

I have no particular use for alternative energy ... like solar or wind, all that has done here in Ontario is cause soaring hydro bills. Of course thats from negative personal experience with an extremely corrupt government at the helm ... who knows maybe if done properly the energy cost wouldn't have went out of control.

And I know all the damage done to the environment fossil fuel cause's, but you see energy prices aren't income based like taxes, they are consumption based, many people in Ontario have fallen into difficult times with a manufacturing sector that has lost a lot of jobs ... people went from making 25-30 an hour to 12-13, people not getting raises ... etc...

As far as I'm concerned the alternative energy folks are no different than the oil folks ... they are all in it for the $$$ ... with 1 exception the oil companies cause us less pain in our wallet.

I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon

I have no particular use for alternative energy ... like solar or wind, all that has done here in Ontario is cause soaring hydro bills. Of course thats from negative personal experience with an extremely corrupt government at the helm ... who knows maybe if done properly the energy cost wouldn't have went out of control.

And I know all the damage done to the environment fossil fuel cause's, but you see energy prices aren't income based like taxes, they are consumption based, many people in Ontario have fallen into difficult times with a manufacturing sector that has lost a lot of jobs ... people went from making 25-30 an hour to 12-13, people not getting raises ... etc...

As far as I'm concerned the alternative energy folks are no different than the oil folks ... they are all in it for the $$$ ... with 1 exception the oil companies cause us less pain in our wallet.

Conservation of energy is more important than any combination of continuing to burn oil and development of alternatives. The U.S., for example, consumes twice the energy it produces*. And even a moderate reduction of energy uses will not stave off the inevitable consequences of human impact on resources and environment. This is why it is imperative to look at reducing population as in key factor.

What if we built a high-speed rail car system parallel with Keystone XL?

Then both Democrats and Republicans could be happy about all the jobs that they created!

LOL- clever, Jason P!

High speed rail- that's another interesting topic. I'm a big fan of rail and am a member of both NARP (National Association of Railroad Passengers) and RailPAC (Railroad Passenger Association of California) and both of those organizations are very big on high speed rail. I pretty much go against the flow on that one. If we had build high speed rail when Europe and Asia did, we would be their. But today the cost of doing so is prohibitive and I believe a better choice at this point would be to renovate our existing rail service. Railroad transportation uses the least amount of fuel per passenger/ tonnage of shipped goods per mile than all other forms of transportation. We would be wise to invest in our rail services.

We're living on the edge of something big. It's a fantastic time in history to be alive.
AMT, 1.25.15, 00:36 hrs.***********M.I.T.S.